Facts of the Case

Girish C., a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) posted at BPCL, Cochin, filed two connected writ petitions before the Kerala High Court challenging his transfer orders — first, a transfer order dated 28.03.2022 (deferred by a year on his representation citing his mother's cancer treatment and his wife's employment with the Kerala State GST Department), and later, an order dated 12.03.2023 directing his relief from Cochin and posting to CISF, ASG, Delhi, once the one-year deferment period ended.

He contended he was entitled to remain at Cochin under CISF circulars — citing his wife's government employment and his elder son's ongoing Class XII studies — and sought either cancellation or a further deferment of the transfer.

The CISF, in its counter, explained that under its posting guidelines, non-gazetted officers must serve a second tenure of 12 years in their Home Sector, and the petitioner had already completed over 10 years continuously in the Home Sector (Cochin units) out of a total 21 years and 5 months of service; having already availed a one-year deferment, he could not additionally claim the separate one-year extension available under the circular for children in Class X or XII, since that concession could be claimed only once.

This is a service-law dispute over a CISF transfer; the reference to the wife's employment 'with the GST Department of the Kerala Government' is simply a factual detail about the petitioner's family circumstances and has no connection to any GST law issue.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner's transfer from Cochin to CISF, ASG, Delhi, after completion of the mandated 12-year Home Sector tenure, was liable to be set aside or further deferred.
  2. Whether the petitioner could claim the separate one-year extension available for children in Class X/XII after having already availed a one-year deferment on other grounds.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • He was entitled to continue at his present station because his wife was employed with the (State) GST Department in Kerala, invoking a Central Government office memorandum on spousal postings, and because his elder son was studying in Class XII, invoking Clause 26 of the CISF transfer guidelines.
  • The transfer and relieving orders should be quashed and he should be permitted to continue at BPCL, Cochin, for at least one more year.

Respondent's Arguments

  • CISF personnel are liable to be posted anywhere in India under Section 15 of the CISF Act, 1968, and transfers are a routine, non-justiciable exercise of administrative discretion based on vacancy, security, and manpower-distribution needs (30% Home State, 30% Home Sector, 40% Out-of-Home Sector).
  • The petitioner had already completed over 12 years in the Home Sector and had already availed a one-year deferment of his transfer on compassionate grounds; the Class X/XII child concession under Clause 26 could be claimed only once, and having already used his one-time deferment, he could not additionally invoke it now.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that transfers in a disciplined, all-India force like the CISF are intrinsic to service conditions and made after considering vacancy, security, and administrative needs in the public interest, and that courts should be slow to interfere absent a statutory violation or malafide intent, citing Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India, and Divyamol R.S. v. DG, CISF.
  • It found the petitioner had already availed the one-year deferment benefit and could not additionally invoke the once-only Class X/XII extension under Clause 26, and that his attempt amounted to seeking to remain at Cochin at the cost of other officers awaiting their own home-sector postings.
  • Finding no allegation of malafide or statutory violation, the Court declined to interfere with the transfer order, while directing that the petitioner be granted 15 days from the date of the judgment to comply with the relieving order.
  • Both writ petitions were dismissed, subject to this limited compliance window.

Important Clarification

This is a service-law ruling on the limits of judicial review over CISF transfer orders; it decides no GST issue whatsoever. The wife's employment with the Kerala State GST Department was simply one of the compassionate grounds the petitioner (unsuccessfully) relied on to resist his own transfer, and has no bearing on any GST law question.

Sections Involved

  • Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 – Section 15 (liability to serve anywhere in India)
  • CISF Circular No. 22/2017 dated 25.09.2017 (posting/transfer guidelines for non-gazetted officers)

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the petitioner — both writ petitions were dismissed and the transfer to CISF, ASG, Delhi was upheld, with only a short 15-day compliance window granted.

Case Details

High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. WP(C) No. 13543 of 2022 with connected WP(C) No. 13443 of 2023 (Girish C. v. Union of India and Others). Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. Dated 07.09.2023.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.